Comparative assessment of antibacterial activity of different glass ionomer cements on cariogenic bacteria

Objectives Glass ionomer cements (GICs), which are biocompatible and adhesive to the tooth surface, are widely used nowadays for tooth restoration. They inhibit the demineralization and promote the remineralization of the tooth structure adjacent to the restoration, as well as interfere with bacter...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Rahul Gaybarao Naik, Arun Suresh Dodamani, Mahesh Ravindra Khairnar, Harish Chaitram Jadhav, Manjiri Abhay Deshmukh
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Korean Academy of Conservative Dentistry 2016-11-01
Series:Restorative Dentistry & Endodontics
Online Access:https://doi.org/10.5395/rde.2016.41.4.278
id doaj-cbe3b929ad0941968056c3deb1587170
record_format Article
spelling doaj-cbe3b929ad0941968056c3deb15871702020-11-24T23:30:16ZengKorean Academy of Conservative DentistryRestorative Dentistry & Endodontics2234-76582234-76662016-11-0141427828210.5395/rde.2016.41.4.278Comparative assessment of antibacterial activity of different glass ionomer cements on cariogenic bacteriaRahul Gaybarao Naik0Arun Suresh Dodamani1Mahesh Ravindra Khairnar2Harish Chaitram Jadhav3Manjiri Abhay Deshmukh4JMF's ACPM Dental College, Dhule, Maharashtra, IndiaJMF's ACPM Dental College, Dhule, Maharashtra, IndiaBharati Vidyapeeth Deemed University Dental College and Hospital, Sangli, Maharashtra, India.JMF's ACPM Dental College, Dhule, Maharashtra, IndiaSwargiya Dadasaheb Kalmegh Smruti Dental College and Hospital, Nagpur, Maharashtra, India.Objectives Glass ionomer cements (GICs), which are biocompatible and adhesive to the tooth surface, are widely used nowadays for tooth restoration. They inhibit the demineralization and promote the remineralization of the tooth structure adjacent to the restoration, as well as interfere with bacterial growth. Hence, the present study was conducted to assess and compare the antimicrobial activity of three commercially available GICs against two cariogenic bacteria. Materials and Methods An agar plate diffusion test was used for evaluating the antimicrobial effect of three different GICs (Fuji IX, Ketac Molar, and d-tech) on Streptococcus mutans (S. mutans) and Lactobacillus acidophilus (L. acidophilus). Thirty plates were prepared and divided into two groups. The first group was inoculated with S. mutans, and the second group was inoculated with L. acidophilus. These plates were then incubated at 37℃ for 24 hours. Zones of bacterial growth inhibition that formed around each well were recorded in millimeters (mm). Results The zones of inhibition for Fuji IX, Ketac Molar, and d-tech on S. mutans were found to be 10.84 ± 0.22 mm, 10.23 ± 0.15 mm, and 15.65 ± 0.31 mm, respectively, whereas those for L. acidophilus were found to be 10.43 ± 0.12 mm, 10.16 ± 0.11 mm, and 15.57 ± 0.13 mm, respectively. Conclusions D-tech cement performed better in terms of the zone of bacterial inhibition against the two test bacteria, than the other two tested glass ionomers.https://doi.org/10.5395/rde.2016.41.4.278
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Rahul Gaybarao Naik
Arun Suresh Dodamani
Mahesh Ravindra Khairnar
Harish Chaitram Jadhav
Manjiri Abhay Deshmukh
spellingShingle Rahul Gaybarao Naik
Arun Suresh Dodamani
Mahesh Ravindra Khairnar
Harish Chaitram Jadhav
Manjiri Abhay Deshmukh
Comparative assessment of antibacterial activity of different glass ionomer cements on cariogenic bacteria
Restorative Dentistry & Endodontics
author_facet Rahul Gaybarao Naik
Arun Suresh Dodamani
Mahesh Ravindra Khairnar
Harish Chaitram Jadhav
Manjiri Abhay Deshmukh
author_sort Rahul Gaybarao Naik
title Comparative assessment of antibacterial activity of different glass ionomer cements on cariogenic bacteria
title_short Comparative assessment of antibacterial activity of different glass ionomer cements on cariogenic bacteria
title_full Comparative assessment of antibacterial activity of different glass ionomer cements on cariogenic bacteria
title_fullStr Comparative assessment of antibacterial activity of different glass ionomer cements on cariogenic bacteria
title_full_unstemmed Comparative assessment of antibacterial activity of different glass ionomer cements on cariogenic bacteria
title_sort comparative assessment of antibacterial activity of different glass ionomer cements on cariogenic bacteria
publisher Korean Academy of Conservative Dentistry
series Restorative Dentistry & Endodontics
issn 2234-7658
2234-7666
publishDate 2016-11-01
description Objectives Glass ionomer cements (GICs), which are biocompatible and adhesive to the tooth surface, are widely used nowadays for tooth restoration. They inhibit the demineralization and promote the remineralization of the tooth structure adjacent to the restoration, as well as interfere with bacterial growth. Hence, the present study was conducted to assess and compare the antimicrobial activity of three commercially available GICs against two cariogenic bacteria. Materials and Methods An agar plate diffusion test was used for evaluating the antimicrobial effect of three different GICs (Fuji IX, Ketac Molar, and d-tech) on Streptococcus mutans (S. mutans) and Lactobacillus acidophilus (L. acidophilus). Thirty plates were prepared and divided into two groups. The first group was inoculated with S. mutans, and the second group was inoculated with L. acidophilus. These plates were then incubated at 37℃ for 24 hours. Zones of bacterial growth inhibition that formed around each well were recorded in millimeters (mm). Results The zones of inhibition for Fuji IX, Ketac Molar, and d-tech on S. mutans were found to be 10.84 ± 0.22 mm, 10.23 ± 0.15 mm, and 15.65 ± 0.31 mm, respectively, whereas those for L. acidophilus were found to be 10.43 ± 0.12 mm, 10.16 ± 0.11 mm, and 15.57 ± 0.13 mm, respectively. Conclusions D-tech cement performed better in terms of the zone of bacterial inhibition against the two test bacteria, than the other two tested glass ionomers.
url https://doi.org/10.5395/rde.2016.41.4.278
work_keys_str_mv AT rahulgaybaraonaik comparativeassessmentofantibacterialactivityofdifferentglassionomercementsoncariogenicbacteria
AT arunsureshdodamani comparativeassessmentofantibacterialactivityofdifferentglassionomercementsoncariogenicbacteria
AT maheshravindrakhairnar comparativeassessmentofantibacterialactivityofdifferentglassionomercementsoncariogenicbacteria
AT harishchaitramjadhav comparativeassessmentofantibacterialactivityofdifferentglassionomercementsoncariogenicbacteria
AT manjiriabhaydeshmukh comparativeassessmentofantibacterialactivityofdifferentglassionomercementsoncariogenicbacteria
_version_ 1725541956637949952